I did debate for all four years at Stephen F. Austin High School in PF and LD and was the PF team captain for my junior and senior years. I had some experience in state competitions so I like to think I am pretty well versed in both these worlds of debate and I know what I am doing :)

Extensions: I will not flow anything that is new after the second speakers first speech but sticky defense is fine. Extend arguments that you want to survive throughout the round, if you don't bring them up again I'm going to assume that was on purpose. I rather you extend arguments that directly connect with your impact or framework than just screaming out extensions to say you defended it. Intelligent debating and using things that fit the topic is going to work for you better than just saying words to say them.

Speaking: Spreading is completely fine, if you are slurring your words to much I will say "clear". I don't mind if you finish a sentence or two after time has finished and if you are the other team please don't tell them that time is up. If y'all are going way over I will do something to signal you need to stop. When doing cross ex please speak at me and not at your opponent. Be kind to your opponent, if you are being rude or overbearing I will tell you after the round to be more courteous (please don't take this as a diss on you, it won't destoy your speaks unless you are awful. I understand people often don't know they are being rude but often the judge can tell if you are being too much and it is something to take seriously) I wanna make it clear debate is not a place for sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic language or rhetoric. Our country has trouble with those things and we should want to encourage anyone who wants to be apart of this activity to participate and feel comfortable. If you have any contentions or comments that are offensive comments leave them at the door, it won't be tolerated.

Argumentation: I honestly value long term impacts more than I value short term impacts. I would like you to tell me how it affects the grand scheme of things in the world, not what it will do for the next five years. That doesn't mean you can't win off of short term impacts but honestly it will be harder. Also, if you give me a framework you should either connect it to the argument as a whole or you should tell me you are dropping it. There is no shame in saying you are dropping your framework and accepting your opponents but if you say your framework is "US hegemony" and than you don't talk about it once I'm usually gonna vote for the team that reinforced there impacts better. I will also often favor arguments that have numbers and statistics but you still need to support those well. If I look and realize your numbers just aren't true I probably won't vote for you.

Lastly if you have a question about anything please ask me. I will take the time to answer as many questions as I can and the only stupid question is a question you do not ask. I prefer a more casual debate setting (no I'm not gonna give you all the highest speaks always) but if you need to take off your jacket or you aren't feeling well you don't need to ask me if you can. I want you to be comfortable because it will in turn make your arguments better. I am going to be completely honest with you because it will make you better debators but I would hope you aren't doing this just because you value winning. I won a lot of stuff and lost a lot of stuff in debate but the great thing is that it is a marketplace of ideas. I will always disclose if I can (some tourneys are weird!) and give advice if I can but don't take my advice as an ultimatem. I like to think I know what I am doing but the art of debate is constantly changing and you may think something works that I don't and that is the beauty of this. Thank you all for reading and I am excited to be judging.

Judge Info:

Number of Years Judging Forensic Activities: 4

Coach For: Speech Events

Occupation: English Teacher

General Paradigms:

With the exception of extemp topic, speech events should be carefully memorized and functionally executed. You should be engaging and original to the best of your ability. Do your best and don’t forget to breathe. Debate events should rely heavily on logos and source ethos (if sources are cited). Be sure that warrant and impact effectively develop the argument.

Extemp Paradigms:

My preferences goes to cited evidence with dates included. Evidence should assist to prove your statement, not overpower the overall argument. In synchronous competition if the speaker’s triangle is used, please try to keep your whole body on camera and keep the camera at eye level as much as possible. Road maps are appreciated. Rounds are determined on argument effectiveness, speaking engagement, and speaker skill/ preparedness in that order.

OO/ Info Paradigms:

Road maps are appreciated and VAs are ideal (but do not necessarily win or lose points in rounds). Evidence should be properly cited and should assist the speaker’s point, not be regurgitated as the speaker’s point. If the speaker’s triangle is used, try to stay entirely on camera. Camera will ideally be placed at eye level. Judging is based on originality, use of evidence/proof, speaker delivery/ level of memorization, and use of VAs/body language.

PF Paradigm:

Speed of delivery does not matter as long as comprehensibility of speech is not affected; please keep in mind that I am flowing your arguments in order to best evaluate your round – try not to kill me. I have no preference on the format of summary speeches but prefer that you do not introduce major arguments in them. Final Focus should address the value of arguments made and wrap up the competing arguments in a clear and concise way. Argument is valued over style in this event. I discard arguments that are raised for the first time in Grand Crossfire and Final Focus.

Evidence Ethics:

I am adding this to the top because it has had an effect on some of my students recently. I generally follow along on speech docs when they are sent to me. If I notice during the round that you are reading a card that is egregiously misrepresenting what the evidence actually says, I will stop the round and give you an automatic loss and the lowest speaks I am allowed to give. This doesn't apply to things that are simply "power-tagged." I am talking about evidence that has like 10 words highlighted to make a claim or argument not intended by the author. I don't judge PF that much, so this probably won't be an issue in whatever round I am judging you in, but be forewarned.

Harvard update (2/12/2024):

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).

Some info about me:

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Observations for all debate events:

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.

Speech: I have judged a lot more speech over the past couple years. I like students to demonstrate a personal connection to their topic or material.

Quality over quantity. This not only applies to the number of speeches you give but also the amount of evidence you have and refutations you give. I would prefer deeply thought out refutation and clash rather than naming everyone who spoke before you. In so far as presentation I do not care about how you look or how your voice sounds, I care about mindful pacing and thoughtful presentation.